“…These definitions of ''evidence'' varied somewhat based on role of the interviewee: Frontline workers more often referred to community-level process information as key sources of evidence (versus academic or researchoriented types of information), and those working in tobacco reduction, particularly at the management level, had a very clear sense of the role of evidence for their work. However, managers also acknowledged the challenge with using strictly quantitative, academic-oriented evidence in community-based work that left them to ''fill the gaps in evidence'' (Jansson et al, 2010, p. 148), to create a blend of science and art (Ballew, Brownson, Haire-Joshu, Heath, & Kreuter, 2010) where ''anecdotes sometimes trump empirical data'' (Brownson et al, 2009, p. 177 In rural and remote areas, HA interviewees noted that evidence viewed as ''scientific'' was not always accurate and reflective of the population's needs, their health behaviors, or their health status. Therefore, there was an emphasis on establishing community-friendly means to collect information and indicators, relying on local knowledge and indigenous acumen to shed light on what works in individual communities:…”